9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taining the impugned order and validity of proceedings as 'reason' became non-existent and admittedly Ld. AO has made no addition on the reason for issuance of notice u/s 148, hence subsequent proceedings/other additions are illegal in view of ration of Oriental bank of commerce - 99 taxmann.com 312 (SC), 49 taxmann.com 485 (DEL.) etc. 3. Because, ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the validity of notice u/s 148, which is issued mechanically without any enquiry, verification of information etc. with vague reasons without any application of mind and satisfaction of ld. AO sheerly to conduct roving enquiries only and is beyond jurisdiction. 4. Because, ld. CIT(A) further erred dismissing jurisdictional ground without appreciating that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year under consideration which he has received from Director of Income Tax, Kanpur through the PCIT, Ghaziabad. As per the copy of sale deed of the property collected from SRO, it was observed that the assessee and his brother, Shri Johny has sold the property to Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Shri Praveen Tyagi and Shri Vijay Tyagi. To verify the same, notice u/s 133(6) of the Act were issued with prior approval from the PCIT, Ghaziabad. In compliance of the above, the parties did not submit any reply or any documents. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that assessee has concealed his Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) income of Rs. 48,21,600/- against the abovesaid sale of property and issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act. In co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... another transaction which was not the reasons recorded for reopening of the same. He submitted that the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2010) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del.) squarely applies to the case in hand and he prayed that the reassessment proceedings itself is bad in law, deserves to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the issue raised by the assessee are elaborately discussed by the ld. CIT (A) in paras 6.3, 6.3.1. and 6.3.2 of the appellate order. 5. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the ld. CIT (A) has tried to distinguish the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited and Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra) by heavily relying on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of N Govindaraju vs. ITO in (2015) 60 taxmann.com 333 (Karnataka). In our considered view, the decision of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (supra) is the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, reasons recorded in the reassessment notice do not survive in this case, as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (supra). Accordingly, ground no.2 raised by the assessee is allowed and all other grounds raised by the assessee are not adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
